February 4, 2009 at 4:22 pm #30467
Hey guys, I’m posting an edited section of an e-mail I sent to Michael recently. In it I kind of ramble about Integral Taoism. Michael suggested I edit it and post it for those interested in Integral Taoism, so here it is:
“I liked what you had to say about things seeking integration on their own terms. I also agree with you that most of the confusion is about language and also mapping. Some spiritual systems might look at the energetic anatomy and see 7 layers, some 5, some 3, some are strictly a bi-nary take on the soul. They are all referencing the same thing, it’s just that some may have more detail than others.
For instance Tibetan Buddhists may look at the energetic anatomy and see three main layers(gross subtle, very subtle,) with the third having two parts being Turya, and Turya-Tita. The Vedic tradition might see 5 “sheathes”, and the yogis of India might see 7 levels. The Christian mystics like St John of the Cross, and ST Theresa of Avila might say that there are 7 mansions of the soul. I have heard that some Jewish mystics say that there are 10 “faces of God”. I know BK Frantzis’s system has 8 levels of energetic bodies.
I really think that they are all referring to the exact same thing, except through a different cultural lens. For example when we compare the Tibetan Buddhist outlook to Frantzis’s mapping system we see that they both start with the gross body, then the Tibetans call the next level subtle. Where Frantzis goes, Etheric, Emotional, Thinking, Psychic. This to me is just taking the Tibetan subtle level and breaking it down into further detail.
The Tibetan system then goes to very subtle, where as Frantzis might go into Causal, and the body of Individuality. Now the Tibetans break very subtle into Turya and Turya-Tita; I think Turya is comparable to Causal, and the body of Individuality.
The final stage of the Tibetan system is Turya-Tita which is non-dual realization. This is pretty much the same thing as Frantzis’s body of the Tao. This happens all over the world in different mapping systems and can often lead to a battle of semantics. I think this is the big bonus of the Integral movement. It seems to me that it helps to point out the similarities and boldly includes all beliefs in varying degrees.
I also like the way that Wilber looks at “Ascending, Descending, and Non-Dual” beliefs. Again it just helps to put a perspective on things and really helps to disarm many of the arguments that have gone on since systems of realization began. I look at these three types of beliefs and I, being a Taoist, of course see heaven, earth, and man, and Yang, Yin, and Yuan. I also see heaven, earth and man in the 4 Integral quadrants which is sometimes simplified into the big 3. I also see this in Wilbers 1,2,3, of God, or in his three perspectives of reality. His work has also helped me to look at my own Irish Catholic up-bringing and see heaven, earth, and man within the Holy Trinity. Something my own immature denial of my religious roots wouldn’t allow.
All in all I feel that The Integral movement is really like an operating system that allows you to plug these different things into a kind of universal program that integrates everything together, and allows everything to function in harmony without constantly standing in the way of each other. I will say this though, a lot of what the integral movement is trying to create spiritualy (as far as working with the body and energy and not just meditating all day) is something the Taoists figured out a long time ago. Take this along with the complexity of understanding as applied to Qi and energy, and you have something that could really help to animate and enliven the Integral system. This to me is what Taoism can add to this whole thing. The fact that it had learned to integrate the spirit, and the mind, and the body ,and did so so effectively, is exactly why Taoism will really help to balance out and ground the whole Integral movement. Something I am sure you are well aware of.”
Ok so that’s it. I do have some stuff that I wrote on Integral Taoism along time ago. I used Wilbers mapping system and tried to explain different aspects of Taoism. I used Wilber’s I, WE, and IT perspectives to explain Heaven, Earth and Man. The only thing is there is a lot of theoretical stuff in there that I would need to pass by some one with a much deeper understanding of Taoist philosophy, and Cosmology before posting it on a Taoist message board. Maybe soon though.
Anyway let me know what you think, esp. those out there that are familiar with Wilber and the Integral movement.I would love to hear what you think.
Love & Tao
ShenchiFebruary 11, 2009 at 2:55 pm #30468
Nice write up. Not getting a response on this forum is basically an agreement or validation.February 12, 2009 at 1:48 pm #30470
Thanx dog I was beginning to wonder 🙂February 13, 2009 at 7:07 am #30472
well it was a call for knowledgables
formula is shen chi ching
where is ching
ching relates to function
the exact same thing, except through a different cultural lens
it helps to point out the similarities and boldly includes all beliefs in varying degrees
true. so what is the sameness, its reason, purpose.
and if there is consistent differential present, again speculation or assesment of its reason was notpresent.
This happens all over the world in different mapping systems and can often lead to a battle of semantics.
battle of semantics is for intelectuals. but such debates are the fore front.
it is actually war.
each system is individual act of authority of god. individual creative act.
this has two consequences:
a. there are some who allign themselves with a system while not knowing what they are doing. that is not a creative act and as such such humans become dependant on the structure and become hungry ghosts. this may even happen to the founder.
b. after the establishment of a system any new practicioner if rejouveneting tha structure and its stuckness. his fool-ness is praised. and any deviation from practice means misallignment which stuckness does not appreciate.never let go, as they say.
simple example of above is a master feeding of a ritual practice of newbies.
is really like an operating system
a side not. is it or is it not. authority. creation. responsibility.
every system has a function.
an function is creating structure for the creative intelligence to manifest.
thus is should be simple.
non contradictory, selfrepeating patterning, including all.
so simple that it should be so obvious
that it needs less and not additional words to describe.
no words actually.
it is not even necessary
chi kung= breath work
breath work=breath control
nonpracticioners should be controlled
?February 13, 2009 at 8:17 pm #30474
I have no clue what all that means.
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.